vision + mission = profit

The Mount Wellington Cable Car company’s Vision and Mission are based on their own invented "quadruple-bottom-line ethos". It is meaningless fakery.

The MWCC Quadruple-Bottom Line

The MWCC Quadruple Bottom Line graphic

MWCC claims that "Our ethos balances our focus between four core values: Planet (environmental care), People (social inclusion), Culture (cultural vitality) and Profit (economic return)".

In its Full Details brochure simplifies the equation by removing Culture. The project is shown in the perfect intersection of three circles labelled Environmental Stewardship, Social Responsibility and Economic Development.

How the guiding ethos—in either version—was calculated is not explained. It can not be explained. It is fake.

No definitions of any of the terms are offered. No evidence or proof, no calculations or figures, nor any analysis is presented. The mechanism or methodology by which this perfect and superb result is achieved is not shown.

The MWCC simply assures readers everything is equally valued and perfectly cared for.

The quadruple bottom-line is nothing more than a slogan.

MWCC measures success with a quadruple-bottom-line ethos, balancing our focus equally between environmental care, social inclusion, cultural vitality and economic returns.

cultural "healing"

The mountain has been a topic of debate and dispute regarding the conflicting demands of place, aesthetics, visitor use, environmental awareness and resource extraction.’—MWCC 

”After decades as a park, the dispute today centres on the MWCC’s attempt to monopolise and extract the scenery resource.
— Bob Brown

The cable car and all its monstrous apparatus and infrastructure cemented into the mountain is said to be "A venture for cultural healing" This is patently absurd as well as breathtakingly insulting.



Read the MWCC's Secret Submissions


The Triangle of Pain

Values Statement.png



Opponents see a triangular relationship between Benefits, Costs and Profits. 

Benefits: Locals will get some benefit from the facilities, but the benefits flow, predominantely, to tourists. They are the main users and the experience is made for them. It is a one-off, one hour experience. For tourists, social inclusion, environmental impact and cultural vitality do not matter.

Costs The users must pay the cost of the ticket, the proponent has costs too: establishment, construction and management costs, but the main costs are borne, predominantly, by the Hobart community. They experience the environmental and social impacts, the cultural wound. Their economy cops the collateral reputational damage. The cannibalisation of existing businesses by the project would be experienced almost exclusively in the Hobart economy.

Profits Some businesses will derive profits from building or servicing the project, it will provide employees with income, but, predominantly, the profits flow to the shareholders in the company, and the scheme's proponent, Riser + Gain, is one of the two major shareholders.

This quadruple by-pass to bottom-line success would be the lifesaver of sustainable development, but with no explanation or proof proffered, the claim is specious.
— Dr Peter Hay, environmental ethicist